Monday

You Don't Have To Have Reasons

First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee. Since 1839.


19 comments:

Frankie Smith said...

Hey Frank, I had a question that's sort of off topic, but I'm in need of a second opinion on something. 1 Cor. 5:1 refers to a man committing fornication with his father's wife. Can you think of any reason why Paul called it fornication and not adultery? I've heard several answers. One, being that his father was no longer married to his step-mother and thus the sexual encounter was wrong on these grounds that it was at one time his father's wife. I'm not certain about this however because even under the Law it forbids sexual acts with your father's wife while she is married to your father of course but says nothing in the event that the marriage should end. And even in the case that it did, we aren't under the Law, but we obey the law of Christ which holds that something is only bad if it's unloving and thus, harms your neighbor. How could it be this option then seeing as to how your father surely wouldn't be harmed seeing as to how he divorced the step-mother anyway. Second, The same line of reasoning follows if the father had died. According to Paul in Rom 7:1-4, when a man dies, his wife is loosed from the Law of her husband. Thus, there is no violation under the Law, and the father's dead so it couldn't possibly harm him under the law of Christ. Therefore, it seems only logical in my mind that in this situation, that the man is actually having sex with his father's ACTUAL currently married wife. Do you agree with this? And again, why would Paul refer to it as fornication and not adultery?

rottenqueerchristian said...

Just to let everyone know, Friday's and the weekend I lay off of social media... unless I'm bored.

The word Paul uses in 1 Cor. 5 is 'porneia' that is a wide term for fornication, a general sexual immorality Paul is applying to the man and his actions. If Paul wanted to condemn actual adultery taking place, he would have used the term 'moicheia' instead. Adultery by definition means one of the two partners in marriage is fooling around (the Romans and Jews saw adultery the same way we do today and it's pretty clear-cut with everyone). In otherwards, with this SPECIFIC case I don't believe true adultery was taking place here, hence Paul's use of a general term of "sexual immorality" with 'porneia.'

Paul saw SOME type of transgression against SOMEONE with this specific situation and your conclusion makes perfect and logical sense, but here's the rub. The mother would be committing true adultery on her husband if he were still alive and she's not even mentioned other than in passing and what looks like having no consequences for HER actions. This church, somehow, didn't see it as being an issue (the main issue?) of "adultery" between a married couple and Paul is going with that while still addressing the sexual immorality taking place.

To add to the confusion, in 1 Cor 6, Paul uses the word 'porneuó' that can mean adultery AND incest. Now I don't know enough about the differences between the two Greek words (porneuó/porneia) if there is any difference at all.

Sorry I can't help you more with this.

Frankie Smith said...

The reason why I ask is because, if it can be demonstrated that what is happening is wrong even if there were no injured parties, (like this case) would the fundamentalists be able to say homosexuality is wrong? After all, though its not unloving, theoretically, what is unloving about what is happening here? Im sorry, but I do find myself being somewhat confused.

Frankie Smith said...

And one final thing. Does pornea generally refer to harlotry in the Bible or no?

rottenqueerchristian said...

But there IS an injured party because someone is dishonored and it's stated who in Lev 18:8:

"Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; THAT would dishonor your father."

Later the Christian Emperor Justinian decreed a man could not marry his stepmother with the Roman people for the same reason.


Harlotry, as in actual prostitution, is yes, one of the closest associations with the word 'porneia' going as far back as Jeremiah and Hosea.

Frankie Smith said...

But Lev. 18:8 is in the Law. So I suppose it's like adultery or stealing. It's in the Law but that's not why we follow it, but rather because it goes against the commandments of Christ, although it happens to be in the Law as well? Or do we follow it specifically because it's in the Law. I mean there must be a reason why the verse specifically mentions that it's the father's wife. Whatever the situation is, somehow someway this woman is still considered to belong to this man's father and therein must lie the reason Paul mentioned it. I also would like to point something out though. Recall Matthew 19 where the Lord says that divorce is only permissible for the reason of fornication (pornea). However, if a woman is married to a man, wouldn't any sexual act with anyone other than the husband be adultery, and thus we'd expect it to say that adultery is just cause for divorce instead of fornication? Could the same reason for that be the reason or perhaps a similar reason for fornication appearing in 1 Cor. 5:1 regarding the father's wife rather than adultery? I'm sorry if I'm being confusing but I have no one else to ask about it

Frankie Smith said...

Again, I'm asking simply because I want to be clear with regard to the Law. Because there are incest laws that the Law simply says not to do them, but doesn't give a reason (like dishonoring another member of your family). Would those be permissible? It may sound like I'm trying to be a jack ass but I'm not.(you know me by now, lol) Because there were examples before the Law of incest relationships. Take for example the parents of Moses who were Aunt and Nephew which was permitted at that time. Lev. 18:11-12 forbids it, but not on the grounds that anyone would be dishonored. Therefore, since we are not under the Law, could that for example take place? Alos, PLEASE bare in mind that I'm not asking because I wish to have incest lol. I'm asking because I'm trying to make sure I understand the over all principal. Any help you could give in helping me understand would be appreciated Frank!

rottenqueerchristian said...

We can talk about this till you get an answer.


Let me do an overall outline of this and see what you think.


The man in 1 Corinthians 5 hooked up with his step mother. The first mention of it being prohibited is in Leviticus. Now this was forbidden because first, this was what the Canaanites did (remember God starts the chapter with saying don't do the practices of the Canaanites?) and God goes further in saying WHY it's wrong because it's dishonoring the father that is a direct breaking of the later verse in Lev 19:18 of; "Loving your neighbor as yourself" that is the whole of the laws we are to take and carry over to the New Testament according to Christ and Paul (you know how I wrote in detail about that here: http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-narrow-gate.html

Now this was a Law thing in Leviticus for a specific purpose for a specific people in a specific situation, But remember I said that all the laws requiring the death penalty in Leviticus are carried over as "general laws" elsewhere in the Bible? (http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2013/04/leviticus-loves-deuteronomy.html)
and the only one that isn't is the; "man shall not lay with male" prohibition or any variation of it? Well what do we find in Deuteronomy 22:30? "A man is not to marry his father's wife; (why must he not do it as a "general rule" according to Deuteronomy?) HE MUST NOT DISHONOR HIS FATHERS BED." A breaking of the love commandment that is still carried over now. This is backed up by others like Philo who don't make it about "law," but about transgressing against the father's bed that would dishonor him.

Frankie Smith said...

I agree that the man hooked up with his step mom. But I believe this is wrong, not because it is in the Law, but because it specifically says that it is his father's wife. That is to say, not only is the another man's wife, but this mans own father of all people. So I took it as, it's unloving because you're not only with another man's wife, but that man is your father. Agreed that is a dishonor, however, Leviticus 18:8 never mentions that the father is dishonored. It simply says not to discover the nakedness of the father wife because it is your father's nakedness. But is doesn't mention any dishonoring. The greek word I think is aschemosune (meaning shame) But nakedness in general for all those verses is denoted by that word. So it is wrong, but because it is unloving, not because the Law says so. Also, anal intercourse between men simply not appearing in deuteronomy with beastiality and incest is not a definite reason to say that I wouldn't count in the NT while the others would. I understand why you say that, but that (with the DEEPEST respects Frank!) is an assumption. There is nothing saying that something must be in Lev. and Deut., and have the death penalty in order to pass on to the NT. The Law is the Law. There is clearly overlap, but Love is the core. We don't look to the Law for a definition of Love. I say that for this reason. Take the general incest issue. It was always understood even before any Law that murder, stealing, covetousness, and lying were wrong. Everyone has always known this. So even if a murder occurred before the Law, God would of course still have punished someone for it as it would have been intrinsically known that it was a cruel act. But not incest. Abraham, the parents of Moses, and Jacob committed incest and it was never a problem. For this reason, I struggle with the idea that something that was ONLY BANNED when the Law came about, now continues in all forms even now that the Law is done away with as a means for righteousness. Take for example when Paul talks about being redeemed from the curse of the Law, and how were aren't under the Law in Gal. chap. 3. To demonstrate this, Paul makes the point that all who are of the works of the Law are under a curse if all the Law is not followed in verse 10. But, in this very verse he quotes from Deuteronomy 27:26. In that chap. in Deut., incest is mentioned, and Paul is using the final verse in this chapt. to show why we aren't under the Law. This means, that the Law governing incest applies as well. (with regard to us not being under it) So again, in 1 Cor. 5:1, I understand that the man in question harmed his father by hooking up with this wife, but I don't see why we need the Law to tell us that, rather than just the verse itself with the acknowledgment that everything that we as Christians are bound by is based upon the law of love only. Does that make sense?

rottenqueerchristian said...

I was going with the NIV translation with saying dishonor. Shaming/dishonoring/disrespecting it's all the same in that an offense is being committed against another that breaks the law of love.

All you have to show with the 1 Cor 5 situation is that the law of love was broken and not Paul carrying over a "law" from Leviticus outside of the Leviticus 19:18 rule. That was done.

I don't just see anal intercourse in the Leviticus 18:22 passage, I see anal intercourse as a practice of idolatry worship in the passage. Now if you think that my saying the "Kadeshim" (male cult prostitutes) mentioned in Deuteronomy is not a carry over from Leviticus (the naming of the idolatry Priests from Leviticus in Deuteronomy), that's fine, but more says that's the case than doesn't with the word "to’evah" being used in Leviticus that almost always has a cult connotation, 1 Kings that says male cult prostitutes were in Canaan, how homosexuality was historically linked with cult worship in the ancient world and how everything else was carried over from Leviticus. You can't find a more perfect fit in the Leviticus verse than the Kadesh. It was never just about anal sex and certainly not about homosexuality.

I get what you're saying about what looks like incest not being intrinsically wrong, what Paul said is already put in our hearts with what we know is wrong, before the Law came like with murder, stealing, cannibalism, Etc. And I get what Galatians says, but what's the central point you are trying to make again? I must be dense with not getting this or maybe because it's late.

Frankie Smith said...

This is turning out to be long, so if it's ok, I'm going to write my response in multiple parts.

When you say, “All you have to show with the 1 Cor 5 situation is that the law of love was broken and not Paul carrying over a "law" from Leviticus outside of the Leviticus 19:18 rule. That was done.”
…...I agree with this. I just don't see that the Law says that this is a dishonor to the Father. The problem is that you are using the NIV. The NIV is not a word by word translations and thus it by definition isn't consistent.

Let me explain...The word nakedness is rendered by the Greek word ashemosune which means shame. However, it can be used to mean shame as in disgrace such as in Rev. 16:15. OR it can me shame as in simply uncovered or bare. The second form is what being used hear because the Hebrew word used from which the Greek was translated indicates that term. The transliterated Hebrew word is “erwah”, which means uncovered. Not shame as is disgrace, but shame as in uncovered. Here are some scriptures as an example of where this appears: {Genesis 42:12, Genesis 42:9, Exodus 28:42, Hosea 2:9} The only time it is ever used to be synonymous with shame is Isaiah 20:4 where it talks about the captives of Egypt and Cush being lead away naked and uncovered to their shame. So the context is the same. Erwah or nakedness doesn't mean dishonor.

When it says, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.” in Lev. 18:6, if the word for nakedness meant shame in the context of dishonor, it would be saying, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their dishonor: I am the LORD.”

But that makes no sense does it? So if you applied it to Leviticus 18:8 it would be, “The dishonor of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's dishonor.”

Or verse 9: “The dishonor of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their dishonor thou shalt not uncover.”

Look more closely especially at verse 10: The dishonor of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their dishonor thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own dishonor.”

The difference between these and the NIV, is that you have nakedness is the KJV for every place where “erwah” or “ashemosune” is found. That is not so with the NIV. Take a look at this:
Leviticus 18:8 in NIV: 8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.”
---BUT--- verse 9 says: 9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

Notice how dishonor is not present in verse 9, even though the word “erwah” does in 8 and 9. It appears to be consistent if you're assuming you know precisely what it means. In reality it's not. And you and I both know the danger of mistranslations or translations that lack congruity.
Therefore, Lev. 18:8 is not saying that the father is being dishonored. It is saying that the uncovering of the father's wife is by extension the uncovering of the father. So there is nothing here saying that what is being done is thought of as unloving. That reason is not given here anymore than it is for no breaking the sabbath or not having sex with your wife on her mentruual period. Again, we are not under these Laws and they in know way inform us about what is loving and what isn't. If they did, than this Law would have not needed replacing. This is one part of the Law which mentions loving your neighbor as yourself, but this law in the Law, was just one of MANY laws. It was not understood by the Jew to be the law that encompasses all Laws because of the core value of love.

Frankie Smith said...

As for homosexuality. Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are not about homosexuality but a specific sexual act. Now, I understand why you hold the position that you do, but the view that anal intercourse here only in the context of idolatry is an assumption. You can't prove it. Agreed there is good reason to think that it is, agreed there is. But having a good reason doesn't make it definitive. Kadeshim appearing in Deuteronomy says nothing more that there are male cult prostitutes among the Canannites. That's all it says. That doesn't mean that when it mention anal intercourse between men in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 that is then must automatically and exclusively denote that and that alone. There just isn't enough evidence for this. It IS POSSIBLE. But it is just a possible for it to be a general condemnation of anal intercourse among men. For all we know, it could be referring to Kadeshim in addition to anal intercourse among men in general. Therefore likening the two as an exclusive pair is simply pure assumption. But many people make assumptions that have a firm basis but aren't correct. For example, the people who say that there is a moral law and a ceremonial law, if you examine their reasons, it really does matter a lot of sense. But at the end of the day, you will find nothing saying that there is a moral and ceremonial law. In the same way, it does not mention in the two Lev. verses that the act is wrong only in the context of idolatry. Remember this is the Law of Israel in the same way that the United States Code is the legal framework of our country. The Laws were not a guide to them, but an actual word for word rule book that they literally lied and died by and had a government setup on. There are legal experts and jurists just like in our system. If someone was ever accused of breaking any of the death penalty laws, it would have had to be proven by two witnesses. These two witnesses in order to give their testimony would have to know what the law said and meant specifically as it related to the topic. There could have been no ambiguity. In a legalistic setting, the Law says what it says, when it says it, and means it in the way it was written. We also know the the Talmud doesn't mention idolatry as the cause for 18:22 and 20:13. So again, I think you're just going based upon assumptions, but nothing that one can say with concrete solid undeniable proof.

As for toebah, toebah simply means unorthoxed or taboo. It's used for a wide variety of purposes in the Law and the Prophets. When it is used in a passage where idolatry is taking place, it's simply there to communicate that what is going on is taboo. It's an adjective. The numerical usage of it to describe an act of idolatry doesn't tie down it's meaning to just idolatry. It's used to describe a wide range of offenses in the Law. Again, this is only an opinion, not an established concrete fact.
Take a look here: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8441.htm

Therefore, if the incest laws of the Law still apply to Christians even though we aren't under the Law, this must apply as well then. And since one can't definitely prove that 18:22 and 20:13 are exclusively related only to idolatry, you're sort of walking on egg shells if you have anal intercourse. That is why I don't go this particular direction. The only thing that we can definitely say is that 1.) Anal intercourse is mentioned and it is not qualified by anything. 2.) We aren't under the Law, therefore those the Law does forbid it, it makes no difference. All righteousness is fulfilled by Christ. All Christ wants me to do is love my neighbor.

Frankie Smith said...

Now to address your last point. You are speaking of the law of conscious in Romans 2:14-15. It says:
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
You said, “I get what you're saying about what looks like incest not being intrinsically wrong, what Paul said is already put in our hearts with what we know is wrong, before the Law came like with murder, stealing, cannibalism, Etc”.
Paul is not speaking about before the Law came. He mentions Gentiles (only existed during the Law not before and now we are one in Christ) who didn't have the Law of Moses doing the things that are in the Law of Moses. A few thoughts on this.
He doesn't say incest is something that we just “know” is wrong because it was put in our hearts. That's not even the context. He simply mentions the Law but nothing specific. There are many Laws that they can be doing. Across every culture in the world, it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, hate, cheat on your spouse, and disrespect your parents. Incest was practiced in many culture around the world INCLUDING the culture of the patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, Moses) and was not considered wrong. IT WAS to have sex with your father's wife. But to simply marry someone of close kinship, that was not considered wrong by a large and even in the places that it was, it was no where near the weight of any of the other things mentioned. Also bare in mind, even with the Gentiles having a law unto themselves, they clearly didn't do all the law or even most. If they did, why would Christ have even been necessary. So again, Paul is being very broad about Gentiles observing points in the law by nature with mentioning anything specific. He is no where saying that people knew because of the law of conscious the incest was intrinsically wrong. It just isn't saying this. But lastly on this point, if incest was intrinsically wrong according to conscious, it wouldn't have made sense for Abraham to have married his half-sister in a relationship blessed by God. (producing the seed of Israel {Christ} in whom all nations will be blessed). Or for Jacob to have been married to Leah and Rachel at the same time who were sisters, through whom God produced the founders of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Or for Amram and Yohabed who were Aunt and Nephew to have had Moses who through the power of God lead the Israelites from captivity. None of these relationships were punished nor discouraged, even though they were later outlawed in the Law. So I don't agree that it was ever intrinsically bad. Only through the Law was it bad. But we aren't under the Law. Just a Abraham had incest but was righteous before God without the Law but justified by faith, so can a Christian who also is without the Law of Moses but justified by faith. And we are likened to Abraham in the regard of being justified by faith alone without the Law in Galations chapter 3 and Romans chapter 4. There is simply no proof of incest BY ITSELF being against the Law of Christ, only the Law of Moses.

Frankie Smith said...

Lastly about Galations 3, the point was to demonstrate how we aren't under the Law. Not even the parts regarding incest. In Galations 3, Paul is making the point that we aren't under the Law. To those who might disagree, he says in Gal. 3:10- “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”

He also says in verse 13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So clearly if the Law puts you under the curse because you can NEVER follow it, the only way for us to be free of this curse is to be free from the Law. Which is why ofcourse Christ redeemed us. Now back to incest, when Paul says we are redeemed from the Curse of the Law does that mean from the Laws regarding incest as well?

To answer this question we need remember that what Paul wrote in Gal. 3:10 is a quote from Deuteronomy 27:26: Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Now Paul uses this quote to tell why we aren't under the Law, since being under the Law would be to be under this curse. Now, if you go to this chapter and look at verses 22-23 it says:
22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
23 Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen.

These laws are listed in the EXACT same list of laws that contains Deut. 27:26 which Paul quotes. Now, if Paul considers Deut 27:26 to be apart of the Law that we have been redeemed from, and that Law is the final law the sums up a list of Laws the include incest, then if we aren't under 27:26, we aren't under 27:22-23 either! They are all not only in the Law but apart of the exact same list of Laws, and Paul uses the sum up Law of this list to make his point about how we aren't under the Law. So there you have it. Incest is included in the Laws we have specifically declared to be REDEEMED FROM. NOW, that doesn't mean that incest in every way is ok. Having sex with your Father's wife is obviously wrong. But it's wrong NOT because it's in the Law. It is wrong because it is unloving. It is unloving because you are taking ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE. In 1 Cor. 5:1, Paul is concerned about the fornication aspect above all. But he is particularly upset because it was with the Father's wife. It's bad enough and unloving enough to be with your neighbors wife, let alone your Father's wife. The outrage came from that. But, and incest relationship between two single persons I believe should be ok since 1.) There is no law against it. 2.) It's not harming your neighbor 3.) There are example of incest relationships in the OT before the Law that were not considered bad since there was NO LAW to prohibt it, and they did not harm anyone. I say once again, I WOULD NEVER DO IT. Hell, I could never do it LOL!. But my disgust you might say is based upon my own upbringing and social outlook and that alone. It has nothing to do with Christian teachings. I hope that makes sense.
Thank you for your patience through all this Frank btw. I hope you understand that my viewpoint is NOT against you even if we might have a slight disagreement

rottenqueerchristian said...

I'll try to touch on as many points as I can starting from your first posting and work my way down through them without making it into a book.


First, maybe I should have made clear the only reason why I used the NIV is because it was the first translation to come up on a Google page. I didn't mean for it to be an exact word translation from the Greek I was going with in any shape or form.


Second, you might be right because in all honesty I never bothered taking apart the incest verses and you make a case. As you know, I focus solely on homosexuality here because, well, that's what I do.


I do want to point out a few things Frankie.

Aschēmosynēn means shame in not only Revelations, but also in Romans with talking about sex (in this case idolatrous sex). "Seeing/uncovering nakedness" has always been a Jewish euphemism for sex. I don't know why you say an unloving wrong isn't being done when even the translit 'er-waṯ' doesn't change the meaning when it's used in every place from Genesis 9:22 with Ham doing something sexual to a passed out Noah that results in a curse to Ezekiel 23:29 with what a man does with a whore. The Jews felt so strongly about the step-mom deal, they still called for the death penalty (unlike with homosexuality) EVEN IF the father was dead. What YOU think 'uncovering nakedness' means if it's not in the context of doing something that isn't unloving.



I'll leave the incest arguments, the bulk of your writing, alone from here on because I haven't done the research you have. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I would also ask you if could save your incest arguments for another place more suited for them.

rottenqueerchristian said...

You said you believe Leviticus a possibility anal sex is just being talked about without idolatry, but why is the verse placed after the mention of "Moloch" worship and not put with the other sexual prohibitions prior to the Moloch verse? I see this as a debate between two brothers in Christ, but you saying I'm making an assumption the male cult Priests aren't carried over from Leviticus and named in Deuteronomy as the Kadesh is also you making an assumption with no support while I have do several times over saying they are. It's not POSSABLE, It's PROBABLE given the evidence. Also, after the "man shall not lie with male" verse is the prohibition on bestiality and the cult term 'to'evah' isn't used with it, the Hebrew term yμυσαρόν (dirty/foul) is. So it IS clear it's in the context of idolatry. And if it is about just anal sex as you believe? Well don't do anal sex. That's all the Leviticus verse prohibits. You're making a bad comparison with what I have to say on this with those who try to make a case for a "moral/ceremonial" divide of the laws because that's what the Jews did. There is no guessing with this, it's a clear right and wrong with the Jews being right and the Christians being wrong with how the Law was divided. You bring up the Talmud to try to dispute the idolatry angle, but the Talmud doesn't even mention homosexuality in the verses much less idolatry, but pederasty in the broader argument of prohibiting heterosexual INCEST ironically.

The numerical usage of 'to'evah' to describe an act of idolatry DOES tie down it's meaning to just idolatry in Leviticus because the prior verse boxes it in that context.



When you bring up Romans 2:14-15, I don't understand your reasoning there were no "Gentiles" before the Law, who do you think the Gentiles were? Where you're talking about in Romans it uses the word 'ethnē' (a carry over from the Hebrew Bible of "goy" that meant everybody in the world... but the Jew) for Gentiles as in Gentiles being ALL people or ALL nations. In Matthew 28:19, we are to; "make disciples of all ethnē (people/nations). A testimony of what God puts in out heart with what is wrong or right without being told goes back to Cain killing Abel and knowing he did wrong, no "law" existed to sear his conscious for murdering his brother, it just did because sin still existed before the Law.



Like you said, this shouldn't be a point of contention between us because these are doctrinal issues and you are a blessing to me my brother in many ways.


Frankie Smith said...

I understand Brother. If I had had another medium to speak with you on this subject, I would have done it there. It's just that this was the only place I had to reach out. With this said,so as not to distract from the theme of this blog, I would not be offended if you removed these messages after we were done. I did not post them here because I wanted them to be public, only because it was the only way I could contact you.

But to sum up with my final thoughts, concerning this thing, I will simply say these things finally. There is nothing showing that it is unloving before the Law. There are examples of it happening before the Law in God sanctioned relationships. Therefore if we aren't under the Law but have righteousness through the promise of Abraham through his seed (Jesus), and Abraham was righteous without the Law (since the Law came 430 years after the promise) and we by extension get the same deal (if I can use that crude term), if he could do it but be righteous since there was no Law of Moses, so can a Christian. Where there is no Law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15) You will not find any place where it is condemned EXCEPT for the Law which we are not under. If it was intrinsically wrong, and unloving, God would have not permitted the patriarchs to do it (especially Abraham to do it). As for ashemosune, like I said, it can mean EITHER shame or bareness depending on this context. In the context of this, we have erwah for context. I say again, erwah simply means to be bare. You won't find any place where that hebrew word in and of itself is linked with dishonor or unlovingness. It simply means bare, that's it. The context tells you whether it's unloving or not. The situation with Noah and Ham, Ham took advantage of his father in the presents of his brothers. THE FATHER WAS DRUNK! and didn't know what was going on. Of course THAT is unloving. But the situation with Lot, and the patriarchs were in the context of loving relationships and were not condemned. Again, you find condemnation of it only in the Law of Moses. We aren't under the Law of Moses. And in the Law of Moses, it's there because God put it there in the same way God put to not cut your beard. The Laws were not there because of love, but righteousness. Only we as Christians receive our righteousness from love BECAUSE OF CHRIST. The Law was simply the Law. Again, you will find no condemnation of the ACTS BY THEMSELVES outside the Law. The situation of Noah was exploitation so it was wrong. The situation of Abraham and Sara was loving so it was ok since there was no Law of Moses. That's my final word on this topic unless you'd like to ad something else.

rottenqueerchristian said...

I'm not deleting our conversation because, apart from the incest issue I wouldn't touch with someone else's 10 foot pole, the rest was good conversation.

I'm pretty done with the incest issue. I had a conversation about Leviticus and incest with a prior poster in my comments and I had my fill.

If you would like to continue with the homosexuality aspect, let's take it to my e-mail:
queerjesusfreak@gmail.com

rottenqueerchristian said...

I've since did a follow up post:
http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2016/01/madesh-kadesh.html

Two resources on the Kadesh:

"The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament" by John Grey.

“The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Histoical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew qadesh-qedeshim” by Phyllis Bird.